[meteorite-list] Term Main Mass

From: Arizona Skies Meteorites <johnbirdsell_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri Jan 20 02:32:03 2006
Message-ID: <20060120073200.77921.qmail_at_web51504.mail.yahoo.com>

Yes Adam, you may of course use any term you like. In
fact, perhaps the term main mass shouldn't be used at
all since it presupposes that there aren't a larger
yet undiscovered masses from the same fall. That may
mislead a collector into buying a specimen that isn't
actually the very biggest piece from the fall. Maybe
the term should be "largest individual of NWA 123" or
"largest individual found to date from presumed fall
XYZ". Though, I must confess that I don't quite see
the difference, since the fact of the matter is that
both the terms 'main mass' and 'largest individual'
are still context dependent...


Cheers


-John



--- Adam Hupe <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net> wrote:

> I respectfully disagree with the below statement,
> the List seems to be
> divided on its usage therefore it is not currently
> accepted. I feel safer
> using the old established definition of the term
> Main Mass rather than the
> new selectively used definition. I think the term
> "The largest specimen
> under this particular nomenclature" would more
> accurate in describing the
> smaller pairings than "Main Mass."
>
> >The term main mass is not a difficult concept. In
> its currently accepted
> usage it is context dependent.<
>
> Take Care,
>
> Adam
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Arizona Skies Meteorites"
> <johnbirdsell_at_yahoo.com>
> To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 10:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass
>
>
> > The term main mass is not a difficult concept. In
> its
> > currently accepted usage it is context dependent.
> If
> > one states that meteorite "Z" is the main mass of
> the
> > NWA 123, then that clearly means it is the largest
> > extant specimen of the meteorite individuals
> > comprising all individuals belonging to the NWA
> 123
> > grouping. It does not imply anything more or less.
> > That is it. No if's, and's or but's. If on the
> other
> > hand one states that meteorite "Z" is the main
> mass of
> > a particular "fall", then that implys that it is
> the
> > largest extant specimen found to date from a
> defined
> > fall, or the largest remaining specimen if the
> largest
> > specimen has been cut up. This really isn't that
> > diffulcult to understand is it?
> >
> >
> > -John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- "R. N. Hartman" <rhartman_at_membranebox.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > OPINION:
> > >
> > > This has traditionally, for as long as I have
> been
> > > collecting, and that is
> > > for 50+ years, the one largest or primary piece
> has
> > > been the "main mass".
> > > More usually, there had been a loose
> understanding
> > > that the main mass
> > > usually referred to a very large meteorite where
> > > there was one substantially
> > > large piece and many smaller pieces. If there,
> for
> > > example, were a
> > > strewnfield with many pieces that were all
> within a
> > > similar size range, it
> > > served no meaningful purpose to call the largest
> a
> > > main mass. After 1999
> > > when many small "Saharan" individuals, all
> somewhat
> > > different, started
> > > becoming available, and there was only "one" of
> > > each, soon each started to
> > > be referred to a "main mass". This was a happy
> > > time for dealers and
> > > collectors as collectors could now collect "main
> > > masses"! But, I don't
> > > think that was the intent of the term as it was
> > > originally used.
> > >
> > > And definitely, as Adam states, there can be
> only
> > > one main mass. One need
> > > only to look up the term "main" in a dictionary,
> > > i.e. "the first in size".
> > >
> > > Dealers and collectors who try to bend the rules
> > > (broaden established
> > > definitions) for their own gain do nothing in
> the
> > > eyes of researchers to
> > > promote a good image for meteorite collecting in
> > > general. In the end such
> > > behavior will come back to haunt everyone!
> > >
> > > Ron Hartman
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Adam Hupe" <raremeteorites_at_comcast.net>
> > > To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 9:04 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass
> > >
> > >
> > > > I agree with what Mike had to say about not
> using
> > > the term Main Mass to
> > > > describe a pairing of smaller size, it seems
> too
> > > misleading to me.
> > > Scientist
> > > > have made a good effort with the pairing
> issues.
> > > One just has to look at
> > > > the following sites to see this is so:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://epsc.wustl.edu/admin/resources/meteorites/moon_meteorites_list.html
> > > >
> > > > http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/snc/
> > > >
> > > > Not only that, pairings are mentioned in
> abstracts
> > > because most scientists
> > > > use this information and believe it is valid
> data.
> > > I think a better term
> > > > must be available, mainly in the interest of
> > > collectors. I would never
> > > claim
> > > > to have 42 planetary main masses even though I
> may
> > > have the same number of
> > > > nomenclature assignments. To do so would be
> > > fraudulent in my opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Take Care,
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <MexicoDoug_at_aol.com>
> > > > To: <meteorite-list_at_meteoritecentral.com>
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 8:48 PM
> > > > Subject: Re: [meteorite-list] Term Main Mass
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Hola Adam, Mike, Dean, Bob, and anyone else
> on
> > > this subject,
> > > > >
> > > > > You guys are all to be commended on your
> roles
> > > in the recovery of these
> > > > > specimens. The real question I see is not
> how
> > > many main masses you
> > > > have -but
> > > > > whether you have any main masses at all-
> from
> > > these dense localities:
> > > > The
> > > > > system is quite arbitrary no matter how you
> > > attribute subjective/random
> > > > pairings.
> > > > > This shouldn't have any negative connotation
> > > associated with it. I
> > > > posted
> > > > > something similar to this about a year or
> two
> > > ago in this forum.
> > > > >
> > > > > You all definitely have a lot of the world's
> > > biggest pieces in your
> > > > > possessions, none of you massive dealers
> needs
> > > any bragging rights from
> > > a
> > > > viewpoint
> > > > > down here in the trenches, its not as if
> these
>
=== message truncated ===


Arizona Skies Meteorites
Received on Fri 20 Jan 2006 02:32:00 AM PST